At the expiration of the trust period and when the lands have been conveyed to the Indians by patent in fee, as provided in section 348 of this title, then each and every allottee shall have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the State or Territory in which they may reside; and no Territory shall pass or enforce any law denying any such Indian within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law: Provided, That the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, and he is authorized, whenever he shall be satisfied that any Indian allottee is competent and capable of managing his or her affairs at any time to cause to be issued to such allottee a patent in fee simple, and thereafter all restrictions as to sale, incumbrance, or taxation of said land shall be removed and said land shall not be liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the issuing of such patent: Provided further, That until the issuance of fee-simple patents all allottees to whom trust patents shall be issued shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States: And provided further, That the provisions of this Act shall not extend to any Indians in the former Indian Territory.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (1980).
· cites it 2× “§§ 318a, 323-325 (roads and rights-of-way); 25 U. S. C. §§ 349 , 372 (issuance of fee patents to allottees or heirs found to be capable of managing their affairs); 25 U.”
Plains Com. Bank v. Long Fam. Land & Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316 (2008).
· cites it 2× “182 , 25 U. S. C. §349 ) (2000 ed.)). Among the powers lost is the authority to prevent the land’s sale, see County of Yakima, supra, at 263 (General Allotment Act granted fee holders power of voluntary sale)—not surprisingly, as “free alienability” by the holder is a core…”
Oneida Tribe of Indians v. Vill. of Hobart, 542 F. Supp. 2d 908 (E.D. Wis. 2008).
· cites it 5× “182 , 25 U.S.C. § 349 , which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to immediately issue fee patents to competent Indian allottees without waiting the entire twenty-five years required under the Dawes Act.”
Mitchell v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Finally, on the non-constitutional claims, we deny entitlement to any recovery under 25 U.S.C. §§ 349 , 377 (1976) (and their regulations), which deal with the issuance of fee patents to Indians found by Interior to be competent.”
Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1 (1956).
· cites it 2× “[9] 25 U. S. C. § 349 . [10] See S. Rep. No. 1998, 59th Cong.”
Nichols v. Rysavy, 610 F. Supp. 1245 (D.S.D. 1985).
· cites it 5× “BURKE ACT OF 1906 The Burke Act of 1906, 25 U.S.C. § 349 , amended Section 6 of the General Allotment Act.”
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Mont. v. Moe, 392 F. Supp. 1297 (D. Mont. 1975).
· cites it 4× “25 U.S.C. § 349 , 24 Stat. 390 . Section 6 of that Act provided: At the expiration of the trust period and when the lands have been conveyed to the Indians by patent in fee, as provided in section 348 of this title, then each and every allottee shall have the benefit of and be…”
United States v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., 899 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Congress added Section 6, 25 U.S.C. § 349 , as a later amendment to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue a patent in fee simple upon satisfaction that any Indian allottee is 14 UNITED STATES V.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.